From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 69A363858434; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 22:11:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 69A363858434
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707257470;
	bh=ljW6gPBE1rEhhnePuKw3yaoMq+dXSVkhdc8rgoVDH8o=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=izHw7Y4rlOm1b0nL2tg9Xloiwuea3W1n96vXzIaoFI2a430Dj1DIxPcdTc2/AshX6
	 y/+4glgw4db7I9mRo4ElC7P1dlZ1/3hm2teO2f7/A3e/WXckJW5pqwFzVjWGaBx9ic
	 3689Wn/yAb1C0Fn7rOtoK4mJri/Sc/4fuH+oKHjk=
From: "tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51492] vectorizer does not support saturated
 arithmetic patterns
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 22:11:08 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-51492-4-3tuUthVV5w@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51492-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51492-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D51492

--- Comment #17 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #16)
> I have a try like below and finally have the Standard Name "SAT_ADD". Cou=
ld
> you please help to double-check if my understanding is correct?
>=20
> Given below example code below:
>=20
> typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
>=20
> uint32_t
> sat_add (uint32_t x, uint32_t y)
> {
>   return (x + y) | - ((x + y) < x);
> }
>=20
> And then add one simpify to match.pd and define new DEF_INTERNAL_OPTAB_FN
> for it. Then we have the SAT_ADD representation after expand.
>=20
> uint32_t sat_add (uint32_t x, uint32_t y)
> {
>   uint32_t _6;
>=20
> ;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
> ;;    pred:       ENTRY
>   _6 =3D .SAT_ADD (x_4(D), y_5(D)); [tail call]
>   return _6;
> ;;    succ:       EXIT
>=20
> }
>=20
> If everything goes well, I will prepare the patch for it later. Thanks.

Yeah that's looks right, I assume above you mean before expand?

I believe saturating add is commutative but not associative, so you'd want =
to
add it to commutative_binary_fn_p in internal-fn.cc.

You may also want to provide some basic optimizations for it in match.pd su=
ch
as  .SAT_ADD (a, 0) =3D a. etc.=